Fountaingrove Environmental Impact Report - City of Santa Rosa ...

ES082008001BAO_Fountaingrove_publicComments_v3.indd_090408_lho
PUBLIC
HEARING – 1
PUBLIC
HEARING – 2
PUBLIC
HEARING – 3
PUBLIC
HEARING – 4
PUBLIC
HEARING – 5
PUBLIC
HEARING – 6
Oral Comments made at July 24, 2008 Planning Commission
Meeting
Note: This transcript has been created based on tapes from the Planning Commission hearing. Its
purpose is to record the comments for response purposes. Any errors in spelling or grammar are
unintended; the transcript was not reviewed by speakers for accuracy. The City apologizes for any
misrepresentation of speaker quotes.
Skip Epperly
I live at 1986 West Bristlecone Court in the city. The community as a whole I believe does
not object to development of this property but really would encourage any development to
be a good fit and it be appropriate in size and scope for the area to be developed. We also
seek to ensure that the projects true environmental impacts are fairly flushed out and
analyzed so that appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives can be considered by the
city that reduce the impacts to the greatest extent feasible prior to approval. The proposed
Draft EIR impact report does not adequately analyze environmental impacts in the areas of
air quality, aesthetics, biology, greenhouse gases, seismicity, and traffic and has not crafted
appropriate mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce these impacts.
In the areas of aesthetics, the EIR concedes that the construction of the project components’
removal of trees would degrade the existing visual character and quality of the project site
and its surroundings, constituting a significant environmental impact. However the analysis
appears to be inadequate in its determinations. How the impacts have been reduced to
insignificant is indeed incorrect.
In biology the DEIR is inadequate and incomplete in its analyses and mitigation of impacts
to biological resources. Just one of those I'll highlight - the Woodlands habitat area. The
DEIR neglected to analyze the impacts to the 6.08 acres of the Oak Woodland habitat and
admitted sensitive biological community on the subject site or to recommend proportionate
mitigation. Constitutionally mitigation measures must be roughly proportional to the
impact. Omission of the project’s impacts on habitat loss renders the true proportional
mitigation inefficient to reduce the project’s impact to biological resources to insignificance
The riparian habitat we find similarly that the DEIR acknowledges the existence of 0.8 acres
of riparian habitat but does not analyze it. In addition we failed to see any of the required
comments from the Dept of Fish and Game. The assessment that was done states that it
likely meets the definition of the riparian habitat as described by the Fish and Game Code
and the California Code of Regulations and would require compensatory mitigation for
habitat losses. CEQA disallows deferral of mitigation that entails study of analyses which is
being recommended here.
Seismicity concerns me the most. We find that this area defers study. The deferral is not
authorized under CEQA law and we encourage the site be studied more completely.
Edward Margason
My address is 3635 Thornberry Circle. I'm a registered civil engineer and geologist and I'm
commenting today on siting retaining walls and grading for the proposed Lodge project in